Review AFL Round 22 autopsy - Hawthorn defeats Geelong by 23 points

[Cattery]

No worries Cattery- you're welcome anytime! What device are you using? Computer/phone/ipad?

Those stats are constantly updated throughout the game - both team stats and player stats. I often like to check at the end of quarters, to see how we're going. Yeah, it's a pain to load at times but, if you're a stats nut, you'll find a way

Just the standard old computer, don't own a mobile phone or ipad [still livin' in the last century me]

And yep, am a bit keen on stats so I'll just have to bite the bullet and, as you say find a way.

Again, many thanks.

 

[Strangled Cat]

Is the glass half empty or half full?
Last night's game against Hawthorn has polarized views
Pessimist's believe we have slipped and Hawks have gone past us.
Optimist believe we showed we can beat them at our best.
Rather than framing my cognitive bias you be the judge.
This game warrants further analysis.
Did we show we can beat them?
Did they show they could beat us?
Did we dominate when the game was there to be won?
Did we play out of our skin or can we reproduce this level?
Why did the Hawks play better in the second half...
Clarkson asked his guys to lift, run and take risks
Did Chris Scott do the same? Probably not.
If the game was a final would we have gone harder?
Did they force us to play badly or did we fail to take our chances?
Can we mach them or stop them ?
Were there other things that influenced the game....
Did they get favorable umpire decisions that gave them momentum?
Were there injuries that hindered us?
Do we have more up-side then them that will help us?
Will the Hawks be nervous next time we meet?
Will we the hunter or the hunted?

Did you have more YES than No?
I DID

I had more Yes than No, but realised that I contradicted myself in the process. Is that cognitive dissonance, or what?

 

[Teriyakicat]

I had more Yes than No, but realised that I contradicted myself in the process. Is that cognitive dissonance, or what?

Nah, not at all- some of those were trick questions

 

[4quarter_cat]

The mods will skin you alive if they catch you regurgitating this, SC

I know its only meant to be tongue and cheek, but i am sick of this bollocks. ;-)

 

[Shai]

I know its only meant to be tongue and cheek, but i am sick of this bollocks. ;-)

That would b tongue in cheek (refer to YPO's grammar thread) and if you can't have a little light hearted fun I'm sorry for you.. we all love footy or we wouldn't b here

 

[Teriyakicat]

That would b tongue in cheek (refer to YPO's grammar thread) and if you can't have a little light hearted fun I'm sorry for you.. we all love footy or we wouldn't b here

4quarter_cat's reply WAS actually tongue in cheek, Shai he's joined in the game...

 

[thegerman]

I had more Yes than No, but realised that I contradicted myself in the process. Is that cognitive dissonance, or what?

Specifically.....no.

Cognitive dissonance is the impact of a conflicting moral or virtue, by means of psychological stress, not specifically contradicting yourself.

 

[allrighty]

Don't worry I understand why they do it.

But instead we get: Dumb exaggerated statement = wrong = new dumb exaggerated statement = wrong = readers realise you're just making s**t up = no readers = no advertisers = no job.

Except in the case of BT

 

[Strangled Cat]

Specifically.....no.

Cognitive dissonance is the impact of a conflicting moral or virtue, by means of psychological stress, not specifically contradicting yourself.

Ha! Yeah... well, specifically - what would you call the impact of contradicting yourself when reasoning through why Geelong were beaten by Hawthorn when both your head and your heart conflict with your thoughts? I'd call it....

 

[Strangled Cat]

Fair bit of foxing going on, knew something was up when Mitchell kept up with Motlop in a sprint, we look like we changed the way we played after half time, one worry was Hmac got beaten badly, Hawkins looks like a truck moving around the ground, but positive was Dunc, Caddy and Varc's, to be fair rather play Sydney week 1 of finals and meet the Hawks in a prelim, then travel for a prelim in Sydney

Why would we play Hawthorn in a prelim and then travel to Sydney for another prelim!?

 

[PremierCatAttack]

Big difference between this year and last year to me, is our record against the top 4 teams. Last year before the finals it was 5-0 our way; this year it's 2-3. It's not quite as imposing.

Even that did not help us last year

 

[Teriyakicat]

Why would we play Hawthorn in a prelim and then travel to Sydney for another prelim!?

to avoid people saying we've bombed out in a qualifier again?

 

[Strangled Cat]

to avoid people saying we've bombed out in a qualifier again?

Right! I should have been reading between the lines in order to uncover the genius.

 

[catman2006]

Why would we play Hawthorn in a prelim and then travel to Sydney for another prelim!?

Yeah my bad on that last bit realised worked it out wrong

 

[maxy87]

This thread has been a good read, and without repeating 37 pages of comments and insights I'll drop my belated two cents worth.

Saturday was a weird match. The post match discussion seems to be much broader than merely the game but extending to our finals and flag chances. I think this interesting, as I thought the game in many encapsulated our season: starting strongly, lapses in intensity, and weaknesses exposed by the best teams.

I don't mean to be defeatist or negative, but I really think some posters need to finally wake up and smell the coffee with Geelong this year. Trying to contextualise this match as part of some cunning plan to be fresh for finals is all well and good but it ignores the fact that there is a definitive gulf between the likes of Sydney, Hawthorn (perhaps even Fremantle) and Geelong. In years past, Geelong were the best team in the league or if not, one of a small cluster of teams expected to play off in a Grand Final. The management of players and strategy was based on this premise. Since 2011, this team has lost considerable midfield grunt and those that still provide it only do so sparingly as they are limited by age/wear and tear and that Scott is trying to fast track the development of the likes of Caddy, GHS, Guthrie.

It took a while, but I think by the QF loss to Freo last year I had finally accepted that Geelong are no longer the side they were and thus a very, very remote chance of winning the flag last year, as I believe they are this year. 2012 was a difficult year to stomach but in hindsight it was clear we were going to struggle somewhat after losing experienced players, particularly Ottens and Ling, (and Scarlett for much of the year).

So taking this post back to Saturday night. I think the match demonstrated that Geelong are still capable of matching - or even surpassing - the top 4 sides such as Hawthorn, but the way in which they are able to do this is unsustainable over four quarters at the minute. There are three key reasons for this:
1. We lack midfield grunt and consistent clearance ascendancy. This is primarily down to age and experience
2. Point 1 means that we must employ a "slingshot" style of play, which leverages our still very strong defence and involves midfielders running hard to defend and then back forward on the break. This can be brutally effective but with an unbalanced age/games profile on our list, it's hard to sustain the fitness for this style over an entire match currently. I suspect that no teams can do this over 4 quarters, but the better teams still have systems to maintain control of the match.
3. We are far too reliant on Tom Hawkins up forward. If Tom is double teamed or the opposition drop numbers into the hole, he goes missing and we really struggle without a second option. Vardy going down was a real setback, but even then, he is inexperienced. Kersten is also still very raw. Basically, we need as many mids as possible to hit the scoreboard regularly. On the balance of results this year, I'm not confident that this will happen often enough for us win it.

I agree with some of the assertions that Scott experimented and could've addressed Hawthorns momentum with some standard moves, but I'm not quite convinced that we still would've won had we done this. Besides, Scott has a mandate to fast track the development of some younger players so I'm glad we had an eye on the future with some of the stoppage setups etc.

As many have said for a while now, it cannot be stressed enough that this team is in transition. Until complete (say 2016), we remain a remote chance of winning a flag. There is no shame in this. Geelong have had a fantastic 2014 and being able to finish in the top 4 is nothing to sneeze at. I'm rapt that our younger players are guaranteed to experience at least 2 more finals which is invaluable for development. And once you're in the top 4, you're still a chance, which is exciting. I suspect these themes will be raised again over the coming few weeks as the finals series unfolds.

TLDR - I guess what I'm trying to say is that the result on Saturday was quite indicative of where Geelong are at as a group, and for a variety of reasons we are only a remote chance of winning it this year. I've certainly shifted my focus from heart-on-sleeve flag hopes to monitoring the development of the group and some specific players, enjoying the wins if they come. Hell, I'm still basking in the warm glow of contentment that 2007, 2009 and 2011 even happened and am happy to watch it all unfold this September regardless.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Excellent post, maxy87
Which means I agree witrh most of it.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Great post by maxy87

On reflection AFL is becoming a more predictable game these days - at least in terms of Finals
> Get the core player group in the right age bracket ,
> Make Top 4 - GF winner invariably comes form here
> Win QF - boosts chance to win PF enormously
> Win PF after facing an opponent who hasn't rested - normally occurs
> GF - take your chances against the other QF winner

Guess that's what happens when a game evolves into systems and processes and Clubs are resourced to the max in their off field departments
A young Ablett Senior wouldn't pass the interview stage with most Clubs these days !

 

[thegerman]

^^^^^ and that's the moneyball strategy right there

 

[Partridge]

Guess that's what happens when a game evolves into systems and processes and Clubs are resourced to the max in their off field departments
A young Ablett Senior wouldn't pass the interview stage with most Clubs these days !

From that era, he would have plenty of mates. At every club. He was from alone in that regard.

 

[FredLeDeux]

From that era, he would have plenty of mates. At every club. He was from alone in that regard.

Matthews would have had to make it as a mature-age recruit via his performances in the VFA.

 

[Pivo]

This thread has been a good read, and without repeating 37 pages of comments and insights...

You probably deserved a "like" solely for reading the 37 pages.

But then you went above and beyond.

Good summary.

 

[maxy87]

Great post by maxy87

On reflection AFL is becoming a more predictable game these days - at least in terms of Finals
> Get the core player group in the right age bracket ,
> Make Top 4 - GF winner invariably comes form here
> Win QF - boosts chance to win PF enormously
> Win PF after facing an opponent who hasn't rested - normally occurs
> GF - take your chances against the other QF winner

Guess that's what happens when a game evolves into systems and processes and Clubs are resourced to the max in their off field departments
A young Ablett Senior wouldn't pass the interview stage with most Clubs these days !

I think it's something to that effect. Or perhaps having been heavily invested in the fortunes of a team that has climbed the mountain three times in the modern era, you gain quite a good understanding of what's required to win a premiership. These days, it's becoming increasingly focused on systems and gameplan (team defence, press, spread, slingshot yada yada) but you often still need a strong enough mix of players to pull it off.

In 2004-6 I thought we were nearly there but not quite and it was really exciting. Looking back at 2007-11 we had most components covered (save for an elite kpf - but our team was ridiculous so we could cover it) and it was a case of getting ourselves in the best position to win it.

I'm not convinced we have all the components yet. We will in say two years time.

Sure, every top 4 side has some weakness. Sydney and Hawthorn struggle sometimes with aerial defence; Hawthorn's midfield can be one paced; and Fremantle struggle to score enough to win big finals. However, I think our issues can outweigh the above as I'm not not convinced we'll win enough midfield battles or be potent enough up forward to beat the best. Relying on a game plan designed to essentially get second use of the ball by winning it back from turnovers is clever as it leverages our defensive strengths but I think this needs to be integrated with other plans. We are seeing glimpses of this already (using the ball through the corridor is still brutally efficient at times) and I'm sure when some of our mids are stronger and more experienced, it will be integrated into other plans but for now I'm not convinced this style alone will stand up to the heat of finals.

If we do win the flag this year, it will be a Bradbury. I'm cool with that though.

 

[vinum coupe]

Where's Bobby when you need him?

AFLCA R22 v Cats

Hawthorn vs Geelong
8 Langford (Haw)
5 Duncan (Geel)
5 Guthrie (Geel)
4 Gibson (Haw)
4 Stratton (Haw)
3 Mitchell (Haw)
1 Mackie (Geel)

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I think it's something to that effect. Or perhaps having been heavily invested in the fortunes of a team that has climbed the mountain three times in the modern era, you gain quite a good understanding of what's required to win a premiership. These days, it's becoming increasingly focused on systems and gameplan (team defence, press, spread, slingshot yada yada) but you often still need a strong enough mix of players to pull it off.

In 2004-6 I thought we were nearly there but not quite and it was really exciting. Looking back at 2007-11 we had most components covered (save for an elite kpf - but our team was ridiculous so we could cover it) and it was a case of getting ourselves in the best position to win it.

I'm not convinced we have all the components yet. We will in say two years time.

Sure, every top 4 side has some weakness. Sydney and Hawthorn struggle sometimes with aerial defence; Hawthorn's midfield can be one paced; and Fremantle struggle to score enough to win big finals. However, I think our issues can outweigh the above as I'm not not convinced we'll win enough midfield battles or be potent enough up forward to beat the best. Relying on a game plan designed to essentially get second use of the ball by winning it back from turnovers is clever as it leverages our defensive strengths but I think this needs to be integrated with other plans. We are seeing glimpses of this already (using the ball through the corridor is still brutally efficient at times) and I'm sure when some of our mids are stronger and more experienced, it will be integrated into other plans but for now I'm not convinced this style alone will stand up to the heat of finals.

If we do win the flag this year, it will be a Bradbury. I'm cool with that though.

Yeah - a Bradbury would be nice , imagine the uproar.

I share your thoughts on the mids as whilst having talent Guthrie , Bundy , GHS, Caddy and Motlop will all be so much better and consistent with more games , 2014 might be 2 years too early. The future looks good as well with Hartman , Lang and JJ in the wings.

What we can change now is the F50 strategy. Playing amateur Coach I would play Rivers forward this week and have Duncan or Bartel spend time as the marking HFF option. We do not win enough ball in F50 and having those guys 40 -60 metres from goal will enable us to lower our eyes for a short option every now and then. All can kick goals and are very good overhead or on the lead. We would be far less predictable and maybe Tommy gets a chance to go 1 on 1 more instead of being manhandled by 2 or 3.
After all we know the defenition of insanity.....this Finals Series is a great chance for brave coaching.

 

[allrighty]

If we do win the flag this year, it will be a Bradbury. I'm cool with that though.

And as we all know the real Bradbury had to be there to win firstly, and secondly was good enough not to fall over at the last corner before the finish. So I have nothing but utmost respect for him as an athlete.

Whilst I may take the piss about him from time to time like the rest of us, I am sure he DGAF. After all a win by any means would still feel as good.